CA Unpub Decisions

Due to work obligations, M.J. (Mother) allowed her boyfriend to watch her two-year-old son G.J. and five-year-old son Ga.J. While in her boyfriend’s care, G.J. suffered numerous serious injuries and Mother failed to protect him. As a result, the children were removed from Mother’s care, and Mother was offered reunification services. On appeal, Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings removing the children from her care. The minors have also appealed. On appeal, the minors argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s order granting Mother reunification services absent “competent testimony” and best interest of the children. Counsel for the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) responds that there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders, and agrees with the minors that the court erred

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant and defendant Alcide Galley, Jr., pled guilty to infliction of corporal injury to a spouse, resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a), count 1), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a), count 2), false imprisonment by violence (§ 236, count 3), and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1), count 4). The trial court placed him on probation for three years under specified conditions. It subsequently found that defendant violated his probation. The court sentenced him to state prison for a total term of three years eight months.
On appeal, defendant contends that the court should have stayed the sentence on count 3 pursuant to section 654. We affirm.

Defendant and appellant Athena Wilson shoplifted clothing from a Target store but used no force or fear until she punched, scratched, and bit a security officer who approached her after her exit. A jury convicted her of robbery pursuant to Penal Code section 211, which requires the crime be “accomplished by means of force or fear.” In People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23, 28 (Estes), the Court of Appeal held that the requisite force need not occur contemporaneously with the taking of goods from a store, but instead could occur to prevent a guard from retaking the property or to facilitate the defendant’s escape.

Defendant and appellant Darin Kristopher Wilson is serving nine years in prison for a second strike robbery with a prison prior enhancement. Defendant received this sentence for stealing a comforter from a dry cleaning business and physically resisting the business owner’s efforts to retrieve it from him as he retreated across the parking lot of a shopping center. Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that this court should reexamine the long-established Estes doctrine, which states that the element of force or fear need not take place at the time of the initial theft, but can include the thief’s efforts to prevent the property from being recovered until the thief reaches a place of relative safety. We decline to do so, and thus affirm the conviction.

Defendant and appellant Brian Jeffrey Brown appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18 , subdivision (f), also known as Proposition 47. Because the People did not meet their burden to prove that defendant is ineligible pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (i), we reverse and remand for further proceedings in accordance with section 1170.18.

Defendant and appellant Dwayne Allen Johnson appeals from a trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Health & Safety Code section 11361.8 (Proposition 64). We affirm.

Defendant Robert Perez Arroyo, Jr., appeals from a judgment, following convictions on three counts: attempted manslaughter, as a lesser included offense of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187; count 1); mayhem (§ 203; count 2); and burglary (§ 459; count 3). Based on the four issues Arroyo raises in this appeal, we will conclude as follows: the record contains substantial evidence to support the mayhem conviction; the trial court did not err in failing to give a unanimity instruction; and the court should have stayed the punishments for mayhem and burglary.
Accordingly, we will modify the judgment to stay the sentence on counts 2 (mayhem) and 3 (burglary) and, as modified, affirm the judgment.

A jury found Toren Nieber, a jail inmate, guilty of resisting an executive officer by means of force or violence. (Pen Code, § 69, subd. (a).) The jury could not reach a verdict on a second count (battery by an inmate on a noninmate, § 243.15), and the court later dismissed this charge. In a separate trial, Nieber had been convicted on a murder charge and sentenced to 90 years to life. On the current conviction, the court sentenced him to an additional 32 months (16 months doubled because of a prior strike).

A.O. (minor) appeals from the order of the juvenile court dismissing dependency jurisdiction. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300 & 395.) The minor contends there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s determination that his mother, A.J. (mother), rebutted the presumption that he is a person subject to dependency jurisdiction pursuant to section 355.1. The minor further contends there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s conclusion that he was not at risk of serious physical harm as a result of the failure or inability of mother to supervise and protect him. We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

Defendant Tyler Christopher Schweizer crashed his truck into the victim’s truck, killing the victim. Seconds before the crash, defendant was driving over 99 miles per hour (mph) in a 60-mph zone. A jury found him guilty of vehicular manslaughter and second degree murder. On appeal, defendant contends insufficient evidence satisfied the implied malice element of second degree murder. We will affirm.

Fidencio Hernandez appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of two counts of sale of a controlled substance in case no. 2016037242. Before trial, appellant admitted a prior prison term enhancement and the case was consolidated with case no. 2016000594. Before sentencing, appellant entered a plea of guilty in another case (case no. 201503632) for conspiracy to commit a crime with a gang enhancement. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of eight years state prison in case nos. 2016037242 and 2015036032. Appellant was ordered to pay $900 restitution fines, $900 parole revocation fines, a $120 court security fee (§ 1465.8), a $90 criminal conviction assessment, a $1,940 presentence investigation fee (Gov. Code, § 1465.8) and a $515.08 Criminal Justice Administrative Fee in case no. 2015036032, and a $515.08 Criminal Justice Administrative Fee and a $600 drug program fund fee in case no. 2016037242.

Mother P.V. appeals the juvenile court’s termination of parental rights over her six young children. She contends the court should have applied the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to the preference for adoption found in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B). We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

Francisco Arreguin, Jr. appeals a trial court order denying his request for release from Atascadero State Hospital (ASH). (Pen. Code, §§ 1026.1, 1026.2.) He was charged in 2016 with two counts of vandalism with more than $400 in damages, second degree burglary, and enhancements. (§§ 594, subd. (b)(1), 459, 667, subd. (d), 667.5, subd. (b).) After reviewing medical evaluations, the court found Arreguin not guilty by reason of insanity. He was committed to state hospital in October 2016. (§ 1026.)
In December 2017, Arreguin applied to have the court determine whether he “would be a danger to the health and safety of others, due to mental defect, disease, or disorder, if under supervision and treatment in the community.” (§ 1026.2, subd. (e).) He submitted a statement detailing his condition, history of drug abuse, and his intention to take medications and other precautions to avoid relapse.

On October 16, 2017, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office filed an amended information charging defendant and appellant Steven Martin Sanchez, Jr., with one count of battery with serious bodily injury against David Dawson (Dawson). (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d).) A second count charged defendant with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4).)